Wednesday, May 5, 2010

"Changes in Family Life"


Roissy commenter dragnet wrote a brilliant, succinct post about the breakdown of gender roles and family values in our current society.

The presumably female commenter, Skadi, got him going with this offhand remark:


“dragnet, I understand your point very well. The problem is that today the family life has changed immensely since the times of your grandmother.”


dragnet rebuts:

Let’s stop right here for a second because this is really where the shit starts. You write that family life “has changed” — as if we all just woke up one morning and the shit was totally different. That’s not what happened and you fucking know it. What happened was that a minority of discontented women were no longer content to exercise traditional female power (their sexual power, and then their power as wives and mothers)and instead wanted to be able to wield traditionally male power in addition to that which they already had.

The idea that a woman had no power before feminism was always bullshit — women had tremendous power.


Women who were attractive to men had tremendous power, thanks to the social code of chivalry. It was the bitter, bitchy and ugly harridan feminists who had no sexual-based manipulative influence over men that resented their more attractive sister's feminine power. They resented watching women who were able, with a mere batting of the eyelashes or a seductive smile, get men to do anything they desired. These jealous, unattractive women coupled with angry lesbian marxists were the real agitators for changing the gender roles of society.

But they wanted more than power—they wanted authority which is the masculine form of power. And to get it, they made their personal grievances into a sociopolitical movement which the majority of women either tacitly supported or at the very least did nothing to hinder it.

In doing so, they necessarily emasculated and marginalized men & boys. The acquisition of power is a zero-sum game—it can only be obtained at the expense of someone else. The more traditional male power women obtained, the less men would be able to wield it.


Female Empowerment = Male Dis-empowerment.

Not that many men are “marriage/boyfriend prospects” because our society has rendered the vast majority of them undesirable partners by making them unable to satisfy the demands of hypergamy.


Hell, unable? Our society makes men completely unaware and clueless about the female's hypergamous sex drive. Everything in our culture and educational institutions tells men how to be "nice guys" so they can be "suitable" mates for women...and most guys follows these societal cues, and are confused and befuddled when they are told "Lets Just Be Friends."


Women can now wield traditional masculine (authority) and feminine (sexual) power while men most men are left with diminished masculine power. Men with diminished power are never attractive to women — but that’s what our society signed up for when we let women wield traditional masculine power in addition to what they had before.


Yup.

dragnet than excerpted another fallacy written by Skadi -

“Too many men avoid commitment, marriage, having children. Many men postpone these duties for as long as they can… Too many men are not fit to be husbands and fathers. The real masculinity is almost gone.”


Sounds like Skadi is taking the Kay Hymowitz Child-man in the promised land attitude. dragnet gives her a much deserved rebuke:

The real masculinity is gone because it’s become so heavily stigmatized and suppressed. Real masculinity — the determination by men to wield traditional male power — is persecuted by women as being oppressive and misogynistic.


Not just by women...don't forget the politically correct, SWPL mangina's and liberals who spout the same bullshit. I want to retch every time I read yet another male journalist, pundit or columnist...or hear some TV or radio talking head referring to violence or aggression, who condescendingly denigrates 'testosterone.'

We aren’t raising our boys to be confident and masculine because doing that is perceived as a threat to women being able to wield traditional male power in addition to traditional female power.

So many men are ill-equipped for commitment/marriage, because we’ve decided that to give them power that would make them fit for these institutions is to infringe upon the freedoms of women.


I think while this is a great point, it does need to be expanded on a bit. Along with the privilege that comes with the exercise of power, also comes the responsibility that it entails. The feminist social engineering of society has no problem giving men the responsibilities of power...so long as women receive the privileges and benefits...without any of the responsibilities.

Women and feminists have created a society of men bereft of the things women consider attractive — and are now complaining that the men are undesirable. Words fail.


It appears that words have failed Skadi. She has yet to respond.

“Good men” aren’t born, Skadi. They are made—and women have a place in creating them.


Let's not forget that much of the women creating today's men, are the single mother's whose only male role models they bring into the lives of their young boys is abusive, thuggish boyfriends.

Cultures create good and responsible men by giving them wives, children, and families—by giving them a reproductive investment. My grandfather didn’t become a “good man” until he married my grandmother and attended to the responsibilities of his family. Before that, he was just a “guy”. But he didn’t learn the full meaning of self-sacrifice, unconditional love, reliability, and steadiness until after he had a family and was able to bring traditional male power to bear in the service of caring for his household. Men these days don’t have that option because they don’t have traditional male power, and because women aren’t interested until marrying until much later when they have less to offer men. You couple that with misandrist divorce/family laws & VAWA and it’s really no wonder men aren’t marrying. Most men aren’t sitting it out waiting their turn on the casual sex carousel—because they know it’s not happening for 80 percent of the guys out there. They would have signed up for wives in their early 20s in a heartbeat if women were marrying that early…but they just aren’t because they’d rather pursue careers, graduate degrees, and alpha cock for 10-15 years first.


It's a brave new world of socially engineered gender roles.

You go girl.

21 comments:

Hughman said...

Great post. Your posts on gender dynamics and psychology are always top-notch.

On a sidenote, this is why Catholic girls that are 1st/2nd generation Irish, Spanish or Italian are great - they are far more likely to be sane, accept traditional gender roles, come from large & strong families, and put up just the right amount of resistance.

(Got a cute Irish redhead and Italian vixen in the pipeline - I reckon I can have the redhead by the end of my exams, the Italian may need till after the summer vacation.)

Keoni Galt said...

Thanks Hughman, Good luck with the ladies...

...can't take credit for this post, I simply wanted to expand on a few points in dragnet's brilliant rebuke of skadi.

Niko said...

Post of the year.

fextedef said...

Nobody hates women more than a feminist does. Don't forget that these feminist also desire to have power over other women, who just happen to be better looking than they are.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Love this. The change that occurred was indeed something very calculated.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your blog. I read it all the time and I've learned a lot from it. Keep on doing what you're diong.

Hughman said...

You still broke it down.
You could have just gone 'Wtf is this shit?' and dished out some blue pills.

Hestia said...

I do think most of your assessment is correct, but wonder how much new technology has impacted a woman's power at home and caused discontent. Before the post WW2 era, homemaking and childrearing was far more time consuming and burdensome than it was after the help of male-made labor saving appliances such as the washer and dryer. With more time on their hands and lives removed from the extended family with houses out in suburbia, for many women there may not have been enough to do all day and jealousy may have developed not so much about their husband's work but the validation he received for having a purpose and adult contact every day.

When you couple this new reality with the message being spoken by feminists, a disaster was on the way. This might be a large reason why addressing the social ills of feminism and gender roles is so very difficult. It's not just about a political ideology, but a new technology landscape as well.

I do want to add that this is not to say the new technology is all bad. When you consider that mass distribution of books have become possible/affordable, labor saving devices have allowed more time for active childrearing, and a host of other opportunities, the homemaker wife/mother has a world of opportunity her fore mothers could only dream of....so long as she chooses to see the glass as half-full and think positively.

John Smith said...

that does make sense. so many feminists are so mannish looking....and yeah, under the old system, they were hags with no power.

Keoni Galt said...

Hestia - one point I believe your overlooking here (perhaps because it doesn't apply to yourself and your circle of peers...)

What did many women do with all of that spare time given them by technical innovations in homemaking?

Most watched TV.

Soap Operas and female talk shows like Oprah.

Their discontent was not caused so much by leisure, but also by subversive cultural programming courtesy of the idiot box.

Hestia said...

There is no doubt I could be missing this factor being the tv-free nut that I am, but it seems the impact television had was not as wide in the 1950/60s as it is today. Only half of American families owned televisions at that point and programming was very limited. My dad is turning 60 this year and has often said television wasn't used then as it is now. Censoring of shows was also heavier back then, with much being very wholesome and family friendly according to older family members and not as subversive as a medium as TV is nowadays or was by the time my generation was born in the 80s.

This is not to say there isn't merit in the idea you have posited. By the 1960s half of all daytime television was of the talk show genre after all. I just think the environment was primed for feminism to burn like a wild forest fire out of control due to other social factors that aren't often considered. Women were losing their traditional sphere of influence, one that gave them meaning, purpose, and self-respect at a time when there was an evil to step in and offer new meaning to their lives.

In any event, it's interesting, I think, to consider that the Bible mentions several times the dangers of "eating the bread of idleness" and being busybodies when it comes to women. The destruction feminism has left in its wake ought to prove the danger of idle hands even to those who don't believe in the Bible. ;)

Ms. Grey said...

"Women who were attractive to men had tremendous power, thanks to the social code of chivalry. It was the bitter, bitchy and ugly harridan feminists who had no sexual-based manipulative influence over men that resented their more attractive sister's feminine power. They resented watching women who were able, with a mere batting of the eyelashes or a seductive smile, get men to do anything they desired."
..............................

This completely leaves out women who, though being "attractive" to men, are not at all comfortable batting eyelashes or smiling seductively at them to get them to do their bidding.

Not everyone was raised to be a flirt. Some of us were raised to be modest.

Moreover, this also completely leaves out women who do not want to get men to do their bidding but want to do THEIR OWN bidding - in whatever sphere.

That could be a single woman whom family life, for whatever reason (could be a spiritual one) does not appeal to her, OR a dedicated wife and mother who ALSO has a mind that she wants to develop IN ADDITION to thinking about domestic matters, as well as so many other types of women.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but women fall into more categories than just "attractive flirt happy to engage her feminine wiles in order to use men to do her bidding" and "ugly feminist commie who can't get men to do anything for her and therefore is frustrated."

I certainly don't fall into either of those categories, nor does any woman I know.

Do men fall into 2 categories as well? Such as;

1. Hot hunk who knows how to use his masculinity to get women to do his bidding, and/or...

2. Ugly, frustrated MRA who can't get a date off the calendar and so he joins Men's Rights organizations to rail against alpha men and the women who love them

??????????????

Surely there are some grey areas in between these two???

The Internet Time Suck said...

"There is no doubt I could be missing this factor being the tv-free nut that I am"

Hestia, nowadays people are "online" more than they are vegging out in front of the boob tube.

Living "TV-free" is no longer "elite".

Now..... if you can log off and STAY logged off for a good 5 years in a row, THAT would indeed be impressive. You would truly have escaped the matrix.

Until then, as long as we are "online" we are firmly entranced (in trance).

Anonymous said...

@ Ms grey,so in other words ,(drum roll please )NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT !

Ms. Grey said...

Anonymous, most people are full of shit, whatever their individual personalities might be like. Point blank.

It's just the (material) world we live in.

Be grateful that it is impermanant.

MLM said...

This might be the grossest, most ridiculously ignorant and misled post I have ever read about feminism. The writer here clearly does not understand even the most basic precepts of feminism. I saw some banal commenter from another site link to this, and I'm sorry I lost brain cells reading it.

I leave this comment to reassure anyone else who gets to the bottom of this post that yes, it is ridiculous, and yes, it is sad that there are people in this world who really believe this crap.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.

Anonymous said...

"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum."

Oh,and look, the retard can't even speak real latin. Isn't that a shame.

Anonymous said...

>>The writer here clearly does not understand even the most basic precepts of feminism.

Perhaps, MLM, you should explain the basic precepts of feminism. But, I didn't think any sane person could understand them.

Anonymous age 68

Dalrock said...

Restating MLM's comment This post is wrong but I'm not going to tell you why.

But I do owe her a thank you though. If she hadn't commented on it, I might never have read the post. Although I did read Dragnet's outstanding comment at the time.

Dalrock said...

By the way, I shared some similar thoughts on women's power on my own blog a while back. I didn't consciously think of Dragnet's comment at the time, but I can't say it didn't influence my thinking.

The curse of female power

MsJess said...

"Women who were attractive to men had tremendous power, thanks to the social code of chivalry. It was the bitter, bitchy and ugly harridan feminists who had no sexual-based manipulative influence over men that resented their more attractive sister's feminine power. They resented watching women who were able, with a mere batting of the eyelashes or a seductive smile, get men to do anything they desired. These jealous, unattractive women coupled with angry lesbian marxists were the real agitators for changing the gender roles of society."

Personally I rather enjoy having the freedom to vote, own property have a career. I'm also glad I'm not stuck spending all of my time using my sexuality to manipulate my husband.

I'm really confused why a self-proclaimed liberartian, someone who believes deeply in personal freedom think women should essentially be second class citizens.